Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 Next
Comments 39401 to 39450:
-
scaddenp at 11:01 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Poster - obviously reply is not necessary but for people interested in engaging with the questions, then an occasional acknowledgement of points made doesnt hurt when other people have done the obvious and checked the facts. When someone doesnt do so, then it's easy to regard them as drive-by trollers. I accept your explanation that this does not describe you, especially since you replied here but understand why I asked please.
People here have pointed out some of the nonsense pulmagated over the years by "Goddard". I would assume with your background that you would quickly agree that they are nonsense. If you have just found "Goddard's" stuff without knowing the track record, well then, you know now, and see why the "sneers". Otherwise, its surprising that you would bother to go there more any information on climate. Anyone still reading his stuff is generally a die-hard denier so hardly surprising that the commentators are clapping fanbois.
For an alternative take, you could look at Menne et al 2009 which describes the changes introduced in USHCN V2 and see whether you think these were reasonable or not. As noted above, other critical scientists most certainly think so.
-
Esop at 10:17 AM on 21 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
Worn out denialist talking points from Curry, who would have guessed.
Strange that she did not mention that according to her ''skeptic'' buddy, Roy Spencers UAH dataset, Antarctica as a whole was a whopping 1.5C warmer than normal in 2013. The ''skeptics'' never mention that little fact when they make their normal noise about Antarctic sea ice. Wonder why.
-
davidsanger at 10:08 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Rob @2 : so who is "the anonymous blogger calling himself Steve Goddard"?
Does anyone know?
-
michael sweet at 09:56 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Poster,
All the changes in USHCN have been very well documented and scientists have validated those changes. Curry and Spencer have checked over all these issues. Why would you imagine a person like Goddard has anything new to bring to the table? You need to provide evidence of a problem. A post at Goddards site does not rise to that level.
If I produce a blog post claiming evolution has been disproved by some creationist do you have to provide a detailed explaination? It takes Goddard no time to make this stuff up, since he has no concern for facts. It takes hours to corrall the facts to prove he is wrong. There are better things to do in life than argue with people like Goddard.
You need to learn not to listen to people with very long track records of being incorrect. I am surprised that anyone who has supervised graduate students has not learned that some people are not worth reading. Read more background information like the information at RealClimate, Spencer Weart and here. Once you know the background you will no longer waste time at places like Goddard.
-
Roger D at 09:00 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
opps - in the first sentence of my comment at 8. i meant "...for concluding Real Science is NOT worth.."
-
Roger D at 08:57 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Jim Eager – Yes, the examples of “Goddardisms” are legion. A favorite of mine as an example of the “purpose” of his blog, because of the extreme obviousness of trying to fool his readers, was his cherry pick of sea levels declining during 2010. Since 2010 was probably the second warmest year on record, and since there was a decline in sea level for a while in 2010, he had a perfect cut and paste opportunity to try to score a gotcha. I forget if was trying to show that those darn scientists can’t be depended on to obtain a reliable global average surface temp, or that temperature has no effect on seal level. In any case, looking at all showed that he was being disingenuous.
-
Roger D at 08:49 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Poster,
I’m not a PHD, or a scientist, but I can relate my reason for cocluding Real Science is worth reading. Maybe “Goddard” is onto something, maybe not with respect to his blog post you mention on the USHCN data. But personally, I concluded that life is too short to bet finding something that will increase my understanding of the Global Warming issue there.
The response you’re getting from others regarding using what “Steve Goddard” has, or more likely based on experience, has not found, is probably because of “Goddard’s” track record of so obviously trying to trick those that read his blog: at some point those that don’t want to be fooled will check him off the list of resources that have any likelihood of teaching them something. It is as simple as that. I’d be interested in finding out about the purported USHCN issue, but he’s likely not the source because lasting contributions to understanding the issues is not his purpose. Just because a lot of people want to believe him doesn’t mean others should (most likely) waste their time.
-
barry1487 at 08:32 AM on 21 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Damn. Which box should I put the width (450) in the insert fields, and do I need to fill in the height box too? Is there a link to explanation on how to use the insert dialogue boxes? I couldn't find it if so. Just discovered the relocated preview button. Sorry.
Moderator Response:[DB] If you've selected the proper URL for the image, populating the desired width should auto-fill the height. See the moderator response to your previous comment.
-
barry1487 at 08:27 AM on 21 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Thanks Composer99, Here are the anomaly maps for 2013, maxima and minima from the Bureau of Meteorology.
From here.
Bruiser's hypothesis isn't blown yet, but I'd still like to see their source for solar data.
(mods, I followed the instructions for formatting images, so I hope it comes out right)
Moderator Response:[DB] Fixed images. In your BOM graphics, the images in the URL are embedded in the html of the page; you first need to copy the URL of the image from the page and not the URL of the page itself. Then it would have worked.
-
Poster9662 at 07:45 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
scaddenp I didn't realise I had to reply and my apologies for not doing so. As to whether I'm "stll impressed with that op-ed" the answer is I was never either impressed or unimpressed, it was, as is my comment here, an observation on a publication. At the risk of being moderated to the max I think you and others don't realise that the plebeian world is becoming increasingly disengaged from the stratospheric levels inhabited by the denizens of SkepticalScience. I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a PhD earned from laboratory experimentation in the fields of biochemistry and molecular biology, have published in journals with a credible Impact Factor and have devised laboratory based research projects for and supervised many honours and PhD students undertaking these projects during 33 years as a university academic. If I have a "knack of really finding the dregs" who is the arbiter of dregginess? You? Many who read pieces such as that by Goddard won't think twice about believing what is said is true. "It's published so it must be right" is their maxim. Despite your sneers, I had sufficient nous to bring it to a forum where others better qualified than I, could, if they so wished, objectively crticise and in doing so increase my understanding. To their credit some posting here have done just that and in particular, I think the comments from Rob Painting @2 show the true scientific approach. And to answer the question he asks: Steven Goddard claims that when moving from USNCN V1 to USHCN V2, NOAA manipulated the temperature data so as to give the impression that temperatures are rising steadily. To quote "In USHCN V1, older temperatures were considered good, but recent temperatures were adjusted upwards by about 0.5F. After 1990, no further adjustments were considered necessary. That wasn’t getting the global warming marketing job done, so in USHCN V2 they did the exact opposite. Older temperatures are now cooled, with a hockey stick of adjustments after 1996." end quote. There are a plethora of graphs allegedly supporting these claims. Make of them what you will. The 113 comments following the piece show the writers of (most of) these comments are in no doubt as to what it means. The caveat "most of" is there as I had no desire to read the comments in detail but just quickly skimmed the comments section.
-
Jim Eager at 07:26 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Other Goddardisms:
- Lake Superior is cold because it "remembers" the last glaciation.
- Mercury's surface temperature is hot enough to melt lead because of atmospheric pressure, not because its greenhouse effect ran away and cooked all the carbon out of its surface rock.
Chances are that anyone citing Goddard is simply attemptng to derail a discussion.
-
StBarnabas at 05:47 AM on 21 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
Dessler comes across as being very sensible and having things as correct as is possible at present. Curry comes across as an idiot or more disturbingly a "liar for hire." I despair of the false balance. Curry is not to be trusted.
-
scaddenp at 05:16 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
So Poster, you seem to have a knack of really finding the dregs. You never got back to us about this comment. Are you still impressed with that op-ed?
-
william5331 at 05:02 AM on 21 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Re 6
I only gave the end of the piece of string. You would have to dig deeper using the names of the researchers in the article to see their full results. Sorry, I was being lazy, not giving a link to the original work.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:35 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Steven Goddard? Really? The carbonic snow guy, so clueless he could not be brought to reason by the phase diagram of CO2? The guy who claimed in a 2012 YouTube vid that the big Arctic storm was going to "halt" the sea ice melt, then later removed that embarassing bit altogether? The guy who averages snow cover percentages without weighing them for area? Goddard indeed does a disservice to mankind by keeping up that blog of his.
If you think there is any kind of choice between trusting Goddard or NOAA, your only excuse may be that you haven't followed this pseudo-debate for as many years as others among us. Whatever it is Goddard has found, it is likely something he can't understand. Instead of trying harder to understand, he then casts accusations, in pure WUWT/climate audit/whatever-crap-is-out-there fashion. I'll remind you, like others above, that allusions of fraud are not welcome here.
-
Composer99 at 00:05 AM on 21 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
It appears I set the incorrect field in the "Insert Image" dialogue box to 450 px, resulting in an over-large embedded picture. Mea culpa.
-
Composer99 at 00:03 AM on 21 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
For what it's worth, the ABC has an article showing the Bureau of Meteorology records for minimum temperature deciles through all of 2013.
There is a tiny patch of "Below Average", a few blobs of "Average", and most of the continent is "Above Average" or higher.
Moderator Response:[RH] Fixed image width.
-
Tom Dayton at 23:36 PM on 20 January 20142013 was Australia's Hottest Year, Warm for Much of the World
MA Rodger: No, MoreCarbonOK (snip) would not be influenced at all, though I don't know if that's because he would be unable to understand, or would not pay attention, and if the latter whether he would choose to not pay attention or can't sustain attention. Other folks, of course, might benefit from your explanation, which perhaps should go over on some other post, as Rob P. pointed out.
-
michael sweet at 22:17 PM on 20 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Poster,
Goddard was one of the people on WUWT who asserted that there was no problem because excess CO2 would fall as snow at the South Pole. His reliability (as a skeptic) is so low they have banned him from posting at WUWT because he was making them look stupid! You have to be seriously unreliable for WUWT to think you make them look stupid. If you find that " It is this type of report that creates unease in many as it suggests that results from "official bodies" might be not be entirely what they appear to be." when anonymous people with no scientific experience or training make unsupported claims of error, you need to examine how you judge information you read on the internet. Hint: everything you read on the internet is not really true!! If you have chest pains do you ask the janitor at work if you are OK?
This is a scientific board. You are welcome to ask questions. Making the assertion that respected scientific bodies might deliberately fudge official data is against the comments policy, and makes you look uninformed. In any case, the data is carefully reviewed by the scientists who work for Exxon and the Peabody Coal company. Do you claim that the scientists who work for Exxon are so stupid they cannot find obvious data errors?
-
Climatemama at 22:16 PM on 20 January 2014Heat widget viewed more than one million times at over 60 blogs
Love the widget! Another "tool" for those in our ClimateMama community to use to communicate the facts with the kids in their lives, neighbors, friends etc..Thanks for helping make the complicated, easier...
-
barry1487 at 21:37 PM on 20 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
bruiser @ 13,
Eyeballing the BOM average and anomlay maps, the amount of solar exposure for NSW over 2013 was about average.
Are you able to furnish data links to corroborate what you're saying?
Lower humidity should in general equal cooler minimums in the dark hours. You might want to check 2013 minimum temps to get more insight. If minima were still anomalously high in low humidity periods, then that's going to put a hole in your theory.
-
bruiser at 20:16 PM on 20 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
2013 is a poor example to choose as the poster child for AGW. In fact, quite the opposite. Taking Sydney as an example, new records for solar radiation were set for May, July, August, September, October and December. The average monthly maximum temperatures track the solar radiation trends. The really hot days seem to correlate closest to low humidity; suggesting that the absence of H2O allows transmission of more solar radiation. All three climate systems, IOD, ENSO and SAM favour dryer conditions across Australia.
-
Rob Painting at 20:14 PM on 20 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
I agree with your last sentence, but my sentiments are directed at the anonymous blogger calling himself Steve Goddard. Maybe he has discovered some flaw in the NOAA US surface temperature time series, or maybe he hasn't. Goddard has form for making all sorts of ridiculous claims, which suggests digging into his latest claim is likely a ginormous waste of time. Can you summarize what he thinks he may have found?
-
Poster9662 at 19:18 PM on 20 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
OK I just did see something so I suppose I'd better say something. I hope this comment isn't disappeared because it is deemed to be off topic. Steve Goddard in his blog Real Science has been looking at the NOAA adjustments to the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN) temperatue readings and makes this comment "I spent the evening comparing USHCN V1 and V2 graphs, and discovered a huge discrepancy between their V1 and V2 adjustments". tinyurl.com/k8qh4zf He discusses these at length. It is this type of report that creates unease in many as it suggests that results from "official bodies" might be not be entirely what they appear to be. This, I think, does a disservice to all who are involved in studying the climate.
-
barry1487 at 17:44 PM on 20 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
@4, 9 & 11,
Spencer was asked if the parameters he used for RCP85 projections were the same as the parameters for observations (mid-troposphere 20S to 20N). Last I looked, he hadn't answered the question.
As has been mentioned already, that problematic (error-prone) data is a pretty thin slice of the global budget. Essentially his graph is about the tropospheric 'hotspot'.
-
MA Rodger at 08:14 AM on 20 January 20142013 was Australia's Hottest Year, Warm for Much of the World
Tom Dayton @45.
You say you are "unsure whether he is trolling or is sincerely incapable of having a coherent discussion". Do you consider it would be worth the time explaining the obvious errors in MoreCarbonOK's 'maxima' results? Or would such explanation be too challenging for its recipient?
Moderator Response:(Rob P) - Note that several posts have been deleted primarily because they are off-topic. Further excursions away from the topic of this post may likewise attract the same response.
-
grindupBaker at 07:47 AM on 20 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #3
Slight snag with "...it's cold outside, like during this recent ..." article, it isn't cold outside and it wasn't before. Rain stopped today Sunday 9C going to 13C Friday and I'm out now for quick bicycle to the border. I think this U.S. (?) might be other side of that border, I'd like to hear more about the place.
-
Prufrocks at 06:04 AM on 20 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Topal@4, there's a reason why Roy Spencer uses rcp85 for every one of his 73 comparison model simulations.
And there's a reason why Spencer compares those rcp85 runs reflecting global average temp anomalies with balloon and satellite observations for only 20S-20N.
Moderator Response:Fixed link
-
Tom Dayton at 04:33 AM on 20 January 20142013 was Australia's Hottest Year, Warm for Much of the World
Really, everybody, it is pointless to try to converse with Henry Pool (MoreCarbonOK). He reads little or none of the scientific literature no matter how precisely people point him to it. Despite that he continues to object that there is no scientific evidence. He switches topics at the drop of a hat, then a long time later brings them up again out of the blue, in the process abandoning whatever other discussion he had initiated. I'm unsure whether he is trolling or is sincerely incapable of having a coherent discussion, but the effect is the same waste of everyone's time in either case. An example is a long string of his comments and multiple people's replies back in 2009.
-
MoreCarbonOK at 03:46 AM on 20 January 20142013 was Australia's Hottest Year, Warm for Much of the World
Tom Curtis
I will just note that by treating his "biblical connection" and his purportedly emperical findings equally as "scientific evidence", Pool has showed that is purported science is just religion in disguise.
Henry says
I did not call you Curtis, did I?
In fact, it shows your lack of respect for an opinion based on my own observations that is not yours or the scientists that you believe in. Anyway, I lost you on your argument. Are science and religion not supposed to work together to find the truth? Perhaps you should watch this program
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNJPJ4JwHeE
and see how science and religion can work together to establish the truth.
God bless you all who keep looking for the truth/Truth
Henry
-
Tom Curtis at 00:58 AM on 20 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Topal @4 seems to think the models run hot. That is, if the models were accurate, both temperature distributions in the final figure above should be shifted to the left. The effect of this, depending on the size of the shift, would be to make Australia's observed 2013 temperature less probable for both natural and natural plus anthropogenic forcings. The effect, however, is not equal. A shift of 0.5 C, for example, would reduce the probability of a year at least that hot from about 30% (1 SD) to about 5% (2 SD) with anthropogenic forcings, but from about 0.25% (3 SD) to about 0.006% (4 SD) for natural forcings only. The reduction factor would be far greater for the natural forcings only than for all forcings.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:37 AM on 20 January 20142013 was Australia's Hottest Year, Warm for Much of the World
MoreCarbonOK @42:
"So, to sum it up, my scientific evidence for natural climate change ... include
...
5) the quoted biblical connection"
Henry Pool (MoreCarbonOK) clearly doesn't get it, so possibly others will not either.
The fact is that the "biblical connection", which is a mere numerological coincidence, is not scientific evidence of any sort.
It is not even theological evidence - even if we accept the Bible as a divinely inspired revelation. No book or verse in the Bible says that there 50 half wave length cycles in warming and cooling. Therefore, even if you accept Christian or Judaic relegious claims, the mere mention of a 50 year interval in the Bible is not evidence of a 50 year climate half-cycle.
But even if it was theological evidence, that would not make it scientific evidence. It would have no bearing on the science, one way or another. The only way it could be supposed to be evidence is if you think that finding any coincidental period equating to what you have decided you want to find counts as evidence. But that being the case, that is also Pool's standard when studying emperical data. He approaches the data not to find what it says, but to find how it can be contorted to suport his preexisting opinion.
With that approach, Pool will sift through data to find the pattern he wants to find. If a paleoclimate paper does not show his 90-100 year cycle, he will simply ignore it - and likewise with all contrary evidence. But any data which does show it (and some must inevitably among all the data around, even just by coincidence), he will trumpet as proof of his theory with no more warrant than his trumpeting of the years of Jubilee.
Added in edit:
I will just note that by treating his "biblical connection" and his purportedly emperical findings equally as "scientific evidence", Pool has showed that is purported science is just religion in disguise.
-
jgnfld at 21:42 PM on 19 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
@4 What possible connection between GLOBAL warming(black line) or USA warming (dotted line) in the LOWER troposphere--which is what the models are predicting--and REGIONAL warming in the MIDDLE troposphere in the TROPICS from 20S to 20N are you trying to draw? Be specific.
Looking at the labels on a graph is important.
-
Stephen Ferguson at 21:01 PM on 19 January 2014Methane emissions from oil & gas development
newairly @21 & gws @23
Surely focussing on electricity generation alone gives a false sense of security about what level of fugitive emissions of natural gas produces the same global warming effect as coal?
In the US for example, the vast majority of coal (~90%) is burnt by the electric power sector, whilst the majority of natural gas (~70%) is burnt or otherwise consumed by innumerable much less efficient end users across the economy (namely in sectors covering residential & commercial buildings, industry and transportation).
My understanding is this the main reason why Howarth et al from Cornell University rejected the electric power sector-only comparison between gas and coal as flawed is because gas in particular is burnt with very high efficiency in power stations. In isolation, this scenario takes a flatteringly high amount of methane leakage to achieve the same global warming effect as coal - namely the 7.5% figure given above by gws.
However what of all the other energy uses of natural gas? Howarth et al took this into account by normalising the quantity of energy released at the time of combustion. This seems to me to be a far more realistic approach, but one that unfortunately results in a far lower methane breakeven leakage rate. My recollection is the Howarth et al methodology produces a far less comforting breakeven leakage rate of only ~3%, which is well in line with the recent Miller et al findings on actual methane leakage rates.
Ref "Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations" (Robert W. Howarth,Renee Santoro,Anthony Ingraffea)
-
Tom Dayton at 13:17 PM on 19 January 2014Other planets are warming
No, mkuske, I did not assume that equilibrium was reached almost instantly. Read my reply to you again. Carefully. Really, read it. All of it. Then refrain from typing for awhile, ponder, and read it again. All of it.
-
Daniel Bailey at 12:21 PM on 19 January 2014Other planets are warming
mkuske, please do not refresh the page after submitting a comment. Doing so inserts a duplicate of your just-submitted comment. Thank you.
-
denisaf at 10:44 AM on 19 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
The principle requirment is to convince the powerful and the masses to adopt measures that will ameliorate and adapt to the irreversible rapid climate change that is under way. That objective will be fostered by emphasising that it is the technological systems that are emitting the greenhouse gases. That is obvious to the technically inclined but not to the masses."humans caused it" in the title of this article is conveying a false impression that will not help in acceptance of the insight provided.
-
mkuske at 10:42 AM on 19 January 2014Other planets are warming
Tom Dayton, I also find it interesting and somewhat amusing the differing standards that are applied. For instance, the reason given for solar activity not causing global warming is that solar activity has retreated ever so slightly (while still being at an atypically much higher rate over an extended period of time). Meanwhile the Earth's temperature virtually flat-lining over a period of time in which CO2 has been released into the atmosphere at the highest rate ever is in fact accepted.
Moderator Response:[DB] This thread is about other planets' warming, or not. If you wish to discuss whether global warming has continued over the recent decade+ period, go to this thread where they explain why you are very, very wrong:
Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
Further, you should also review this post:
-
mkuske at 10:26 AM on 19 January 2014Other planets are warming
Tom Dayton, First I'll acknowledge that this is a simplistic analogy. However, you're assuming that the Earth has in fact reached the equilibrial state for the amount of increased activity from the Solar Grand Maximum (Modern Maximum), likewise assuming that the equiibrial state would be met almost instantly (in the larger picture of time).
Just like the temperature of the brisket doesn't instantly jump to 350 degrees just because the oven around it did, neither does the Earth when irradiated by the Sun. In fact the oven could heat to 350 degrees in minutes but it would take hours for the brisket to reach that temperature.
In this analogy the brisket only increases in temperature if affected relatively constantly by the heat input of the oven over an extended period of time. Also when the brisket is cooked, it doesn't immediately express it's stored heat and become room temperature, it releases it over time. After all you don't have to heat it back up 5 minutes after it comes out of the oven. Likewise if it's been out of the oven for 30 minutes and you do want it a little warmer, you don't have to cook it for an hour again, starting from scratch. It has stored some of that heat radiation and gets to temperature much more quickly. Likewise the Earth would not immediately express its stored energy especially considering it -- until very, very recently -- has been exposed to a fairly constant and atypical excess of irradiation from the Sun.You're assuming that the Earth -- and rest of the solar system -- has reached the temperature that it would if the Solar Grand Maximum were the typical constant state.
In this analogy, what is typical for the brisket is the 175 degrees worth of heat radiation from the oven. What's typical for the Earth is a normal non-Solar Grand Maximum fluctuation of radiation from the Sun. The brisket only heats because it is exposed to a constant yet atypical 350 degrees of heat radiation from the oven before the oven drops slightly to 325 degrees, as the Earth has been exposed to an atypical and constant amount of the Sun's increased energy, even though there has been the slightest dip in activity -- which is still being atypical.
And the constancy is important. After all if you turn the stove on for 15 minutes, then turn the stove off for fifteen minutes, then turn the stove on for fifteen minutes, then turn it off for fifteen minutes and continue on that way, you won't get very far at cooking your meat as the brisket will barely have time to absorb more enegy than it expresses. Keep that oven on for 45 minutes though, with the meat continuing to absorb more and more heat and what happens? Your brisket gets cooked. As for Earth -- and the rest of the solar system -- because of the extended Solar Grand Maximum, the Earth has been in the "oven" and constantly asborbing a hightened level of radiation for an extended period of time (since approximately 1900). That doesn't mean it met its equilirial temperature for that heightened state of solar activity.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:04 AM on 19 January 20142013 was Australia's Hottest Year, Warm for Much of the World
An addendum to my @39, I have just been perusing MoreCarbonOK's website, and came across some of the "scientific" evidence he adduces for his theories:
"THE BIBLICAL CONNECTION
My A-C wave for the drop in maximum temperatures obviously does not reflect exactly at the same time what happens to temperatures on earth. Earth has an intricate way of storing energy in the oceans. There is also earth’s own volcanic action, lunar interaction, the turning of Earth’s inner iron core, electromagnetic force changes, etc. It seems to me that a delay of about 5 years either way is quite normal. That would place the half cycle time as observed from earth at around 50 years, on average. 50 years of warming followed by 50 years of cooling. It seems to me the ancients knew this. Remember 7 x 7 years + 1 Jubilee year?"
Might I suggest that he debate his religious views somewhere more appropriate. It is plain he has no scientific views on this subject.
-
Tom Dayton at 09:50 AM on 19 January 20142013 was Australia's Hottest Year, Warm for Much of the World
MoreCarbonOK is Henry Pool, who behaved similarly on other topics in 2009--for example, claiming that evidence is "hidden" when it is in papers that are published but require fees or (horror!) a visit to a library. I suggest we all give up on him again, because he has repeatedly demonstrated he is uninterested in actual discussion.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:38 AM on 19 January 20142013 was Australia's Hottest Year, Warm for Much of the World
MoreCarbonOK @27 made a specific claim:
"[I]f more carbon dioxide (CO2) or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.
That is not happening."
(My emphasis)
I showed @28 from a peer reviewed paper that it in fact was happening, contrary to his emphatic claim. So, @29, he simply changes the subject. Rather than acknowledge his error, he talks abotu something else. What is worse, having set up the DTR as a predicted consequence of an enhanced greenhouse effect, when he finds the test returns the results predicted by the enhanced greenhouse effect he changes the predicted cause.
Very clearly, he is not going to allow evidence to stand in the way of his beliefs. Nor will he acknowledge any of the frequent errors he makes when they are pointed out to him. There is no point, IMO, in further discusion with somebody so lacking in intellectual integrity.
-
Tom Dayton at 08:58 AM on 19 January 2014Other planets are warming
mkuske, also see the post "It's the Sun." Be sure to read the Basic tabbed pane, then the Intermediate one, then the Advanced one.
-
Tom Dayton at 08:46 AM on 19 January 2014Other planets are warming
mkuske, the only way your analogy is valid is if the brisket has not yet reached the oven's temperature of 325 when you lower the oven's temperature from 350 to 325. The oven is still warmer than the brisket, so of course the brisket continues to warm toward that temperature of 325. If instead the brisket has reached the equilibrium temperature of 350 before you lower the oven's temperature to 325, then the brisket will start to cool down from 350. (And it will cool slower than the oven does, because the brisket has greater thermal mass than the oven's air.)
But let's skip your analogy and use the real Earth. You are implying there is a lag between the increased incoming energy from the Sun and the Earth's heating. You are quite correct. Assuming the Earth initially was in thermal equilibrium (same energy coming in as going out to space), an increase in the energy coming in from the Sun will cause energy immediately to start accumulating in the Earth (by which I mean the atmosphere, surface land, surface water, deep oceans--the whole shebang). But that extra energy is distributed among all the components of "the Earth," which takes time. So although parts of the Earth immediately start heating, there is a lag before the entire Earth system reaches a new temperature. If the Sun's input stops increasing--flattens out--then the Earth's energy indeed will continue to increase, but only until it reaches equilibrium.
But simultaneously, as the Earth's temperature increases, the Earth emits more energy to space. So as soon as the Sun's input to the Earth flattens, the energy imbalance in the Earth (energy in minus energy out) instantly starts decreasing. That makes the rate of temperature increase slow down. But that is not what has been happening. Instead the energy imbalance has continued to increase, and the rate of temperature increase has not slowed. Also, we have a large amount of empirical evidence of the length of the lag between a change in the Sun's input to the Earth and the resulting temperature change (e.g., the Sun's 11-year cycle and volcanic eruptions of large amounts of reflective aerosols). The lag is not nearly as long as the time in which the Sun's radiance has been flat.
For more details, and for a more proper place to put your comments on this topic, see the post "Climate time lag."
-
nigelj at 08:13 AM on 19 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Topal #4. Regarding your link, what makes you think satellite or ballon data is the full story on temperature trends? There are questions about the accuracy of both. You are better to average all datasets from atmospheric to surface based. I think if you do that, the IPCC predictions have been reasonable.
-
mkuske at 07:42 AM on 19 January 2014Other planets are warming
This defense of position is particularly poor and can be refuted by a simple 5th grade-level experiment. Take a brisket and put it in your oven, setting the oven at 175 degrees Fahrenheit. After an hour check the brisket's temperature. Put it back in the oven and raise the oven's temperature to 350 degrees Fahrenheit for twenty minutes. After twenty minutes, take it out and check the brisket's temperature. It went up right? Now put the brisket back on the oven and lower the oven's temperature slightly to 325 degrees Fahrenhiet for a half hour. Take the brisket out and check it's temperature. The temperature of the brisket will have continued to rise! "How is that?", you seem to say, "How could the temperature of the brisket continue to rise when the temperature of the oven went down by 25 degrees?" Your "defense" is that the oven couldn't be warming the brisket because the brisket didn't cool when the oven's temperature was slightly lowered -- even though the oven's temperature was still well above the brisket's point of stasis. Seriously???
-
grindupBaker at 06:36 AM on 19 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
william #5 I see no quantification in the article at your link. Sans quantification it says nothing useful regarding the current ultra-short-term topic of a few decades of big, quantified, warming (maybe bodes even extra badder for Aus over the century). Interesting in its own right of course.
-
william5331 at 04:29 AM on 19 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
I'm no climate change denier. I think the climate is changing and the results will be pretty nasty. However a tad of scepticism is in order. A study mentioned in the following link in which isotopes in the rings which occur in stalactites suggested that Aus is going into a natural dry period. (if the past was the wet period, what must the dry look like??). Presumably less rainfall will lead to generally hotter conditions. Aus may be in for a double whammy.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/every-drip-has-a-climate-story-to-tell-20100711-105pv.html
-
George Fleming at 03:37 AM on 19 January 2014Matt Ridley's misguided climate change policy
To understand skeptics such as Matt Ridley, the best aid is Mark Twain:
"...There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
To get the full impact of this statement, see how he prepared the ground at:
http://www.twainquotes.com/Conjecture.html
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:27 AM on 19 January 20142013 was Australia's Hottest Year, Warm for Much of the World
MoreCarbonOK... What I did above was to crop your image down and then resize it to 550 pixels wide. Anything wider than that breaks the formatting of the entire page.
You can also limit the image width by going to the second tab within the insert image dialog box. That will tell you the current width and you can just change the number to something smaller than 550 px.
Prev 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 Next
